Many years ago I used to think that lung volume measurements were the easy part of PFTs. As time has gone on I’ve seen that getting accurate lung volume measurements is actually more difficult than getting accurate spirometry and DLCO results mostly because the errors tend to be subtle. The errors that occur in lung volume measurements tend to cause an overestimation of lung volumes. This often means that restrictive diseases can be unrecognized or that hyperinflation and gas trapping can be diagnosed where it does not exist.

Almost all pulmonary function test systems seem to come with a module that can perform a computerized interpretation of PFT results. Their accuracy has been studied occasionally, often by the developers of a particular algorithm and just as often a rosy picture is painted. Given their limited (and likely pre-cleaned) data sets I am sure this is accurate as far as it goes. I have done my own admittedly very unscientific comparison and would say that for two-thirds of the patients tested the results are probably okay. The other third? Varying degrees of not so much.

The PFT Lab I work with has recently gone through a major software and hardware upgrade. As part of this process we made the decision to switch our spirometry predicted equations to NHANESIII. The lab has been using the Morris predicteds for at least the last 25 years and this switch has led us to re-visit some of the issues involved in interpreting spirometry results. More than one person that I’ve known and respected has said that spirometry is all about FEV1 and I think this is a true statement. There is a lot of other information you can get from a Forced Vital Capacity but it always comes back to FEV1.

Mouthpieces serve at least two purposes. The first is to prevent cross-contamination among patients using PFT equipment. The ATS Statement on General Considerations for Lung Function Testing, (Eur Resp J, 2005; 26: 153-161) discusses this and it is clear that mouthpieces should be used whenever and wherever pulmonary function tests are performed. The second purpose however, is to prevent patients from leaking air during testing. Leaks are a chronic problem for all pulmonary function tests and my experience has been that when they occur it is almost always the patient that is leaking and not the equipment.

I was reviewing the specifications of different pulmonary function test systems recently and saw that several manufacturers were advertising that some of their test systems are able to measure TLC, FRC and RV from a single-breath maneuver. This is true, but only to a very limited degree and I think it is reasonable to ask how accurate and clinically useful these measurements are and whether it is legitimate to bill for the test.

Most pulmonary technicians and physicians are aware that a patient’s hemoglobin and carboxyhemoglobin levels are factors that affect DLCO test results. What may be less well appreciated is the degree to which DLCO varies with the alveolar oxygen concentration. Oxygen and carbon monoxide both compete for uptake by hemoglobin so when alveolar O2 is low or high the measured DLCO will also vary accordingly. The relationship between DLCO and PAO2 has been studied both in a regards to FIO2 and to barometric pressure. Both empirically and mathematically DLCO is estimated to change by approximately 0.35% per mmHg PAO2 change.